Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Federal Bill Would Mandate Anti-Theft 'Kill Switch' in All Smartphones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A false theft report in the UK counts as "wasting police time" (criminal offence), possibly "perverting the course of justice" (_seriously_ criminal offence); having the phone bricked would be "property damage". With stolen identity data? Things just got worse. And all for a prank?
To answer the question: The risk of serious trouble, that's what deters you.
----------
So what are you going to do with the phone if it's permanently in Airplane mode? And of course adding a passcode helps, because then there's nothing you can do with the phone.
Actually this is a genuine problem.
Not the idea that the US government would kill the population's phones, but that enough people will believe such lunacy that they'll be a movement towards individuals disabling this security on their own phones (aided by hack and tips on the web). Following that, there could be a time when this is so well known that thieves will start thieving again, just in case the victim happens to be a paranoid nut with a vulnerable phone.
This kind of thing is like a vaccine - it only works if everybody's in on it. Once people start getting loopy ideas, it breaks for everybody.
I'm normally against this kind of regulation, but since this kind of feature might be beneficial to customers but be detrimental to phone makers, I'm for it (that is, the pu
Worst case, they add it and nothing changes.
Worst case, they add it and nothing changes.
I'm not following why this is bad? What if cars did not have locks? Doesn't the fact that it is a criminal act to steal someone else's car a deterrent? /s
The idea that the CITA is pushing is the same, broken, system that they have been pushing for years. It essentially makes a list with phones on the list inoperable with major providers ( in the US ). Of course this model is broken since there is no validation, no appeal, and no way to know if a device is stolen until you actually try to signup for service. This model plagues CDMA phones in the US where you take a risk that buying a phone on the used market will fall victim to "bad ESN" and will not work with a specific provider ( although the GSM hardware is often unaffected, assuming it was unlocked ). The model doesn't work for phones shipped out of the US either.
Activiation lock works, as long as a buyer has access to the internet and a charge it can be quickly determined if the deivce is locked. It puts people in charge rather than a nameless beaurocracy. Properly used it should reduce opportunistic theft signifigantly as, until now, the device retained so much value on the secondary market as to make it a valuable target.
CITA doesn't want this because they know that most phones will require signifigant redesigns in order to properly implement. Personally I would limit the scope of any bill to apply only to phones with a retail value over, say, $400.
Activiation lock works, as long as a buyer has access to the internet and a charge it can be quickly determined if the deivce is locked. It puts people in charge rather than a nameless beaurocracy. Properly used it should reduce opportunistic theft signifigantly as, until now, the device retained so much value on the secondary market as to make it a valuable target.
CITA doesn't want this because they know that most phones will require signifigant redesigns in order to properly implement. Personally I would limit the scope of any bill to apply only to phones with a retail value over, say, $400.
To believe it's lunacy, you'll have to bury your head in the sand and ignore the world events of the past few years.
Also, the founding of this country is based in a distrust of government and a desire to severely limit their power. This is just one more thing going into the hands of our government giving them more and more power.
Oh, and this is for our own good right? . . . and for the children?
I'm seeing too much stuff like this going on at all levels, we need to move in the direction of personal responsibility and not government treating us like kids that need to be coddled, because, well, were going to raise a nation of kids that need to be coddled.
You're right. Approximatly 1 million cars were stolen last year, 1.6 million phones were reported stolen in the US. As we continue to carry more and more expensive mobile technology it makes sense that there will be a mixture of regulation and consumer pressure to implement these technologies.
I really don't see why anyone is against this...
If California or the EU or China introduced this every phone would get it anyway.
If California or the EU or China introduced this every phone would get it anyway.
Right, because creating new laws is so effective, like laws against speeding, stealing, or killing.
What a bunch of morons. Just let the free market take care of it. If people want security, they will buy the most secure phone.
There are bigger fish to fry.
There are bigger fish to fry.
Yeah. Might as well make killing legal, considering all the people who keep doing it even though there's a law against it.
----------
Listen. People. It's okay to think about the things the government does, rather than just start kneejerking around and posting canned responses the moment you hear a few buzzwords.
I mean do you all have a problem with a government ban on lead paint in children's toys? Is the NSA somehow involved in that because lead blocks cell signals? Is the ban somehow a socialist communist ploy to keep corporations from making a profit? Is it a waste of taxpayers money to keep children from eating lead paint (the little bastards would do it anyway). Would this have been something the almighty hand of the free market (which really hasn't existed since the 30's)
Instead of panicking the moment you hear the words "the government" or "regulations", why don't you all take a moment to dwell on the question for a second before immediately start parroting <insert favorite political party here>'s blanket responses to any and all issues.
I mean jesus ****ing christ, people. Thinking is free. It doesn't cost anything but a tiny bit of effort, and I'm sure at least 70% of you here are at least moderately capable of it. SO DO IT BEFORE YOU POST!
Problem Solved.
Sure there's a way. Be sure to pass on your passwords to your next of kin in your will. Problem solved.
Sure there's a way. Be sure to pass on your passwords to your next of kin in your will. Problem solved.
"And Julie, your grandfather has willed to you his mobile celluar smartphone. The password is "phat_titties_4_lyfe".
:breaks down crying: "Oh papaw! You always were a boob man".
That seems to not be a deterrence at all to most of the people who've hacking into millions of computers, including those in police departments and other governmental agencies, and maybe your grandma's as well.
Will your grandma get in trouble for the false stolen iPhone report sent from her PC (with <foreign country> malware)? And with a bricked phone, she can't even call you for bail or a lawyer!
Probably not. In a situation like that, the police would probably look at the situation and realize that there isn't any malicious intent, then go on their way.
Though if she ends up in a situation where she needs to call you for bail or get a lawyer, that'd probably mean she's in jail, and the police won't let anyone use their personal cellphone in jail, bricked or not. They'd provide a phone for her to use.
You want a more thorough explanation? Here you go. You've earned it.
The government shouldn't regulate this crap because it violates the liberty of a company to create a product that a consumer might want to purchase.
If someone feels they are responsible with their phone and they don't care about security as much as they do speed and other features, then why should they have to pay the built in cost of the development of that feature?
If the consumer is afraid of a kill switch being enabled by hackers, why should they have to have one on their phone?
The answer is that they shouldn't, and the government regulating that they MUST have it is a violation of their liberty as well.
Tons of phone makers are already including kill switches, remote wipes, and all sorts of other enhanced security features without government interference because the free market has been demanding it.
The people that want antitheft devices buy them. The ones that don't won't buy them.
And by the way; comparing this to the government regulating the use of lead paint in children's toys is asinine.
Sorry but some countries have already tried that. It doesn't work, you can still use the phone but without the phone part. The iOS 7 way is better.
It's easy to get some phones IMEI changed too. Hell the unlocking software that many shops use have that feature, labeled as "lost" or "damaged" IMEI repair.
How? It's an option used to wipe and disable the phone remotely in case of theft. How would that be considered a downside?
Because the cost to implement such a feature isn't necessarily any more expensive than implementing Find My iPhone, GPS Navigation, or iCloud. Hell, there you go. It could be bundled as part of iCloud.
And ultimately it doesn't matter how responsible you think you are. You could be the most responsible individual on the face of the earth, but if someone mugs you or picks your pocket, then they have your phone. And once someone has physical access to your phone, breaking through any security checks and passwords you might have implemented is only a matter of time. You might as well have the option to wipe your cell phone remotely to keep them from getting at your personal information.
It's about the same risk someone has of hackers breaking into the App Store and stealing all your credit card information. When you're using something over the internet, there's always some inherent risk involved. You have to weigh the pros with the cons.
And in this case, the pros outweigh the cons.
How is requesting a security feature infringing on their liberties? It's a mandated security standard. A move designed to give end users more power over their phones in order to minimize identity theft.
And the only thing the government mandate does is standardize it as a feature across all smartphones. Since the Free Market :angelic choir: is already doing it, the only thing this mandate does is solidify it's adoption across the board.
It's a goddamn feature. The end user isn't being forced to use anything. They could ignore it entirely if they wanted to. All the government is doing is...as I said above...setting a mandate in order for it to become a standard.
It's like credit card security. For a bank to offer credit cards as a service, they have to adhere to a certain number of standards and regulations before they're allowed to do so in order to minimize damage as much as possible in the event of a personal worst case scenario. This is roughly the same thing. It's another security option.
And security options shouldn't be dependent upon what a manufacturer feels like they should or shouldn't do.